Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

So in my opinion we need to keep one Commando Battalion focussed on artic warfare and with sufficient ships to be able to move as an entire Battalion to Norway. I presume would need say Albion and one of the Bays to transport full battalion? Maybe one of the Points for stores and logistics?

Battalion, or battlegroup? i.e. with or without the CS/CSS that permits the battalion to fight as a mobile combined arms maneuvre unit, rather than ~600 individuals crouched in slit trenches with bergens stacked next to them?

The FCF I think is spot on, though perhaps too keen on new ships when they aren’t using what they have. The gap is the Army’s ability to move a brigade by sea.

Did i miss it getting actually published, as a tangible and real 'thing' that we can poke at and test as something more than a collection of hypotheticals?

The last time we moved a British RM battlegroup was 2018 off Oman and we had 1 LPD , 2 x LSD's and a Point class this was one RM Battalion plus all its logistics , artillery , Engineers and air support came from land bases simulating coming from a carrier

[Tempest414]

Tempest414 Wrote:-

The Chinook can only operate as part of the LRG from a carrier

.


So it MAY WELL operate from a carrier, but it CAN operate from an LSD or any of the T45s or any of the “in-build” and planned T26s.

the only RN ships Chinook can operate from are the carrier yes Chinooks can land and pick up kit / Fuel from other ships in the fleet but operating and lily padding are two very different thing

[Poiuytrewq]

…the only RN ships Chinook can operate from are the carrier…

And for this reason folding rotors are another top priority IMO to make the best use of what we have, especially for the MRSS or in the first instance, converted Bay(s).

[Scimitar54]

How about proper “Marinisation” ?

[Poiuytrewq]

How about proper “Marinisation” ?

Absolutely but it’s never been a priority due to limited funds.

How many things that weren’t a priority two weeks ago are now virtually essential?

[Scimitar54]

Precisely !

[SW1]

How about proper “Marinisation” ?

What do you mean by that from a chinook aircraft point of view?

[Lord Jim]

Besides folding rotors, having tie down points, safe refuelling location as near to the deck as possible and ensuring key components are not vulnerable to sea spray and the resultant corrosion. That would be a start. Mind you the main work horse for the FCF will be the Merlins, possibly supported by the FAA's Wildcats. We also need to marinize the Apache Squadron of eight Helicopters earmarked for use in supporting amphibious operations from various ships as well.

[Scimitar54]

Lord Jim. Thank you for your post. I have nothing additional to say in response to SW1’s question.

[SW1]

Chinook already has tie down points and a safe refuelling point. If you want to go for wet assembled airframes floatation systems and the like which I guessed was what u were really asking then get your check book out big time. Otherwise as chinook was at sea more times that commando helicopter force during the 00s get on with what you’ve got.

[jedibeeftrix]

Did i miss it getting actually published, as a tangible and real 'thing' that we can poke at and test as something more than a collection of hypotheticals?

Fair point, I should have clarified by adding the “expected direction of the FCF”. Whilst we should not plan to fight the last war or interpret too much at the this stage from Ukraine, I think the power of small, high motivated units with the latest kit has been proved. This doesn’t mean large formation operations are dead - they just need to be delivered by the Army.

[Repulse]

Tempest414 Wrote:-

The Chinook can only operate as part of the LRG from a carrier

.

So it MAY WELL operate from a carrier, but it CAN operate from an LSD or any of the T45s or any of the “in-build” and planned T26s.

the only RN ships Chinook can operate from are the carrier yes Chinooks can land and pick up kit / Fuel from other ships in the fleet but operating and lily padding are two very different thing

I thought Chinook’s can operate also from RFA Argus? They cannot be stored in the hangar, but they could be maintained.

Also, if you look at the pic below of RFA Lyme Bay, I would say that the temporary hangar isn’t far off from being able to shelter a Chinook.

[Tempest414]

As said they can land on and pick up Troops , kit , and fuel from the LPD's , LSD's , Argus , T-45 ,Fort Vic and tide class but the only place they can fully operated and maintained from is the carriers

Even when they were aboard HMS Ocean they were transported not fully operated as they would sorted on deck with covers on and rotors removed until they got to were they going and then be rigged and flown off

as for above it would be a struggle to get it past the funnels without removing the rotors

[jedibeeftrix]

Any thoughts on why Russians seem to have pulled out of their planned amphibious landing to take Odessa with their ~ seven/eight ship flotilla.

Speculating Russian Navy had second thoughts and now think too risky in terms of losses to ships and troops, emphasising the limited capability of amphibious ships in attacking well defended port/coast without the overwhelming firepower provided in the past by battleships etc

PS If have my facts right ~70% Ukrainian imports/exports go through their Black Sea ports, Odessa being the largest.

[Tempest414]

Simple the army has failed to close off the North and brake through to Odessa from the East any amphib operation would run out of steam in 24 hours

[Repulse]

Also the sinking of a Russian warship reinforced that they haven’t succeeded in destroying Ukraine’s ability to defend its coast.

[Phil Sayers]

Their flotilla does seem to be moving towards Odessa again but I suspect this is just to tie down Ukrainian troops who need to guard against the amphibious threat rather than because they genuinely intend to attempt a contested landing. I'm not ruling out them landing troops further down the coast but doing so straight into Ukrainian fire seems to me a recipe for disaster given the less than stellar Russian performance to date:

[wargame_insomniac]

Any thoughts on why Russians seem to have pulled out of their planned amphibious landing to take Odessa with their ~ seven/eight ship flotilla.

Speculating Russian Navy had second thoughts and now think too risky in terms of losses to ships and troops, emphasising the limited capability of amphibious ships in attacking well defended port/coast without the overwhelming firepower provided in the past by battleships etc

PS If have my facts right ~70% Ukrainian imports/exports go through their Black Sea ports, Odessa being the largest.

Agreed on first point - I presumed that they wre hoping to do a pincer move with troops attacking overland from Kherson, (maybe with airborne attack as either reinforcement / diversion), and then attack from sea.

On the final point, I presumed that Russian Black Sea fleet had been blockading Ukrainian ports since the per-war naval "exercises". I thought that since then Ukrainian exports had to head west by raod and/or rail?

[Tempest414]

so a quick look at the 7 Russian landing ships would say if they could get all 7 to the shore the best they could hope to put ashore would be 2 re-enforced Battalions and maybe a air assault battalion in helicopters from Crimea so a brigade level operation is the most they could hope for. This would face maybe a Division made up of 1 x Reg Brigade 1 x reserves brigade and 6 to 8 home guard battalions this is why they need the army to brake through from the East but it is bogged down fighting a similar force in Mykolayiv and even if they brake though they 80 miles to Odessa

[SW1]

Need more subs…

[Poiuytrewq]

Need more subs…

We need more of everything….

[wargame_insomniac]

Need more subs…

We need more of everything….

Well we need less fitted "For But Not With" but other than that can totally agree!

[Tempest414]

When we look at what we have got even if it is not all in service we are quite good i.e

2 x LPD's , 3 x Bays if we had a new 230 by 40 meter LPH like Ocean we would be in a great place. For me the key will be a light carrier no matter what replaces the LPD's and LSD's

[wargame_insomniac]

When we look at what we have got even if it is not all in service we are quite good i.e

2 x LPD's , 3 x Bays if we had a new 230 by 40 meter LPH like Ocean we would be in a great place. For me the key will be a light carrier no matter what replaces the LPD's and LSD's

I would love an LPH for LSG(N). If could carry 6*F35B, then could provide air cover and strike ability to LSG(N) whether off Norway coast or in Baltic. My dream would be to add a few MV22 Ospreys to get RM to shore ASAP.

However I am unsure we could afford that anytime soon unless Government significantly increases UK Defence aspending.

Currently I think I would be happy enough with reactivating HMS Bulwark and postponing the upcoming early retirement of RFA Argus.

Argus can't cover the F35B option but can certainly add to the helicopter support of LSG and with the added bonus of excellent hospital facilities. Not quite a poor man's LPH but could definitely do a job for a few more years at reasonable cost.

[Lord Jim]

Well considering the low number of F-35s we will have, that alone should curtail any usage from a platform other that the Queen Elizabeth class. y latest idea would be that instead of purchasing four or more MRSS for the LSGs we first purchased two like for like replacements for Argus and then look at say a Bay 2.0 with permanent aviation facilities and a enlarged Well Deck. Two LSG, each containing one of these vessel types should be all the LSGs need apart form Escorts.